Thoughts on the coming Nov 4th US elections...

I won't get to vote in the coming US elections, where positions from President, Senate (p/of), HoReps, through on down to Sheriffs and school boards get elected across the US. But I, and the rest of the world will be affected by the results. Which is why it's well worth taking an interest.
(As an example, the US legislation that enabled 'sub-prime' mortgages has a flow on effect for the world financial markets, through on down to what interest rate my mortgage costs, and the negative effects on the balance of my superannuation portfolio - and I live on the opposite side of the world. It affects YOU as well, at least indirectly, but probably directly).

The position most of interest (but not the only interest - the results for Congress are also of importance) is the choice the US voters make for President, between John McCain and Barack Obama.

The polls say Obama will win, so I will think aloud on this.
Looking as objectively as possible at the "junior senator from Illonois", I see a young, gifted politician who is an excellent 'networker', and a charismatic public speaker.
Examining his resume, I DON'T see a background, or skills which prepare him for the job he is applying for from the US electorate, that of President of the USA (POTUS). In particular, I don't see a background preparing him for the job as the most powerful, and responsible 'Chief Executive' in the world.
The most obvious thing to me (besides the inexperience - Sarah palin has more executive experience than Obama) is that Barack Obama has a political ideology substantially to the left of mainstream America.

In John McCain however, I see someone who as we Aussies would put it, has 'the runs on the board'. His commitment to country, and selfless service in the military, and in government service as a long time elected represenative are beyond reproach. In him I see a mature, and principled public servant.

Then there are the questions about Obama which follow;

Why spend 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church if he didn't agree with him, or wasn't influenced by his views? (Listen to this!).

There's the questions over the relationship, and what Obama knows of the past of William (Bill) Ayers.

Then there's ACORN 'voter registration drives'.

There are questions about credit card donation improprieties to the campaign.

You have to worry about how he plans to (if he can), fulfil those supporter expectations though.

And we haven't even begun to examine his foreign policy yet. Will he stand up to the threat Iran poses? Or the challenge of China? Whatever you may think of President Bush, he has taken the fight to the terrorists, and they have had little chance to engage in mischief for that reason. If the pressure is taken off them....?

As Melanie Phillips in the UK puts it;

"...You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant (sic) radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so...". [Melanie Phillips 'The Spectator' (UK) 14 October 2008]

I fear it's going to be 'interesting times' if he wins. (Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times").

Oz Election - from the outside.

Found this interesting snip in 'The Australian';

"...Rowan Callick, watched the election with Chinese officials, and their amazement at what happened on Saturday night is revealing. As Callick reported yesterday, Chinese diplomats were agog at the very idea of a government being turfed out overnight and were fascinated at the civility of the leaders. They were amazed that outgoing prime minister Mr Howard had the dignity to address the people in the face of such a crushing defeat and at the generosity of Kevin Rudd's acceptance speech. Whatever their political views, all Australians should be proud of the exemplary way in which the elections were conducted. Indeed, watching the controlled chaos caused by 13 million random acts of democracy, seeing senior ministers put out of a job and newcomers triumph, resonates deeply with the Australian psyche. But it is more than that. It ensures that passing legislation, whatever its merits, is not enough. Governments must be able to take voters along with them. Even a government such as Mr Howard's, in the rare position of holding a majority in both houses of parliament, did not have unfettered power. In the end it was answerable at the ballot box, where judgment was merciless..."

Nor was this the only interest shown, now or in the past. More here for election tragics.
[ 'Political Compass' -worth visiting]

Australia (and a coupla 'Ordinary Australians') vote.

As some may have noticed, I've been off line for about 2 weeks. We have been moving things around in our house, and one result was I only just got internet access back.

It's election day here in Oz. Our family voted this morning, and significantly, Daughter voted for her first time, having turned 18 less than 2 weeks ago (but you can register on the electoral roll at 17 to vote once turning 18).

It's just gone 5:30 here. Polls close at 6PM. Things happen quickly after 6. The Electoral Commission staff at each booth (polling station) close the doors, shutting in themselves and the Scrutineers - (a representative for each candidate in that seat who helps ensure the process is proper and above board) - in and the first, quick count is done by them, and phoned to the AEC, and by the Scrutineers to the candidates offices. (The first figures are known by 6:20 usually). (I used to Scrutineer).

Some thoughts;
. Labor/Rudd has been consistently ahead in the polls all year.

.It is the result in the 20 or so 'Marginals' which truly count - and will decide the election outcome.

.There is apparently a late surge towards Howard and the coalition (Lib/Nat).

My call? A Labor win.
I will update later tonight.

Update 25 November 2007: (These jotted down as we watched the coverage)
My promised update (though a little late - we had 'family stuff' to do).

.6:00PM Polls close in NSW and Vic (still 1 hr to go in Qld, as they aren't on Daylight Saving).

.6:05PM 'The Australian' newspaper exit polls suggest voting 53% labor to 47% coalition on 2PP (2 party-preferred) basis (we have preferential voting here in Australi - not first past the post).

.6:07PM Exit polls suggest PM Howard is in danger of losing his own seat of Bennelong.

.6:35PM First figures in from small booths - 15 of vote counted. exit polls showing 7% swing to labor - landslide material!

.6:55PM Former PM Hawke says "this feels like his 1983 win" Lib MP/Minister Joe Hockey says this is " end of the Democrats".

.7:12PM Lindsay showing 10% swing to labor. Almst certainly a loss for the libs.

.7:23PM Eden-Monaro 53/47% on 2PP "strong swing to labor in key seats".

.7:46PM "5% swing to labor in Qld. Ch7 computer predicts 76/72 seat split in House of reps (ie a labor win).

.8:00PM Polls close in WA (3 hrs behind eastcoast Melb/Syd).

.8:25PM Mark Kelly claims Eden-Monaro for labor - 1st seat claimed!

.8:30PM Julia Gillard says labor can form government.

.8:40PM Jeff Kennet says it looks like John Howard has lost the election and lost his seat.

.8:44PM "Queensland really delivering for labor"

.8:51PM Ch7 commentator Mark Riley calls it - labor victory. 6.5% swing nationally to labor.

.9:06PM First figures from WA. Ch7 election computer calls labor victory.

.10:05PM Howard phones Rudd to concede.

.10:36PM Howard arrives at Wentworth hotel in Sydney and gives speech conceding defeat (quite dignified and gracious).

.10:50PM "The Howard era has ended".

.11:05PM Rudd delivers victory speech at Suncorp stadium in Brisbane.

(All this scrawled down on the back of an envelope as we watched the tally unfold).

Why did they lose? In my opinion; WorkChoices (Industrial Relations legislation), and that the electorate has a better memory that some think - eg "who do you trust to keep interest rates low", Also, alienating 1.5 million voters who happen to also be gun-owners in 1996 didn't help, eventually.

Election 2007.

PM Howard has been to see the Governor-General. Writs for the election have been issued, and Australia goes to the polls on November 24th for a federal general election (including, as is normal, only half the Senate).

Over at Samizdata, Paul Marks asks:

"In Australia there is a budget surplus, unlike most nations. Taxation, in total, is lower than almost all other Western nations. Unemployment is about 4% of the workforce - the lowest it has been for decades. Both industrial output and GDP are growing at more than 4% (higher than almost all nations in the Western world), and this growth has been going for years.

And everyone tells me that Mr Howard is going to lose the general election.

Why? Someone explain this please.

"It is Iraq" - but Australia has had virtually no casualties in Iraq. I can not believe that the nation that suffered the mass murder of its citizens in Bali is going to submit to the will of Al Qaeda (which is what running away from Iraq would be).

"It is Kyoto" - but this agreement did not even limit India or China (the latter the biggest producer of C02 emissions), even the Democrats in the American Senate were not interested in ratifying such an absurdly biased agreement. Why should Australians wish to do so?

No I do not understand. Why should Australians wish to throw away their economy? All their prospects for prosperity tossed away on unlimited power for the unions and endless government Welfare State spending. I do not deny that most Australians are going to do this (I can not argue with a nine month opinion poll lead), but I do not understand why they are acting in this self-destructive way."

There were/are many replies, many along the same lines as mine, which was;

"I'm an Aussie voter. I also have a strong view on one particular issue, which influences my vote - but I'll leave that to last.

Firstly, the Australian electorate doesn't see one party being better than the other on economic management. The foundations of deregulation, floating the dollar, et al, were Hawke/Keating Labor reforms NOT coalition ones.
Some of us remember Howard as the treasurer in the Fraser gov - and that gov was not a shining star of economic management or ideas (Keating/Hawke in contrast were far better).
And, last election, a big issue was (mostly mortgage) interest rates, and the coalition line was they would stay low under them, 5 rises in a row has somewhat put paid to that argument, and in large part their credibility.

Second. 'Workchoices', which a significant portion of the workforce feel very uneasy about - if not for themselves, for their children, unskilled spouse, etc. Reform is good, but it perhaps went too far too fast.

Third. Howard is seen as a 'my way or the highway' sort of operator. Party discipline is iron-clad (unlike, say, US representative votes on issues).

Personally, I would usually be a coalition voter. But that one particular issue I mentioned is the '96 Howard gun laws. I'm a 'sporting shooter'. At least one factor that is not on the radar, but still very much out there is that alienating ~1.5 million voters is not going to help you, sooner or later.".

The wonderful Right to vote.

Australia will go to the polls shortly to elect a new government at the federal level. It hasn't been called yet (the Prime Minister gets to decide timing) but it's due not later than 3 years after the first sitting of this current Parliament. (S28). It'll probably be mid to late November.

When I look at the rest of the world, especially places like Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, I really appreciate how precious that right is.

We are one of the few societies that made it through the 20th century as a free country choosing it's governments by popular democratic means. The list is indeed short. Not many more than Australia, Canada, NZ, the USA, Switzerland. Britain doesn't even make that list because elections were suspended for 'the duration' of WW2.

We, our friends and allies, as a bloc, saw off the Fascist challenge (Germany, Japan) in WW2. Outlasted and 'called' the communist challenge that was the cold war. Unfortunately, as one foe is bested, it seems another threat emerges (or maybe multiple threats?).

What unfortunately is different this time is that there seem those who like the idea of adopting the style of those societies in fighting those new threats. Who seem to advocate limiting the rights and freedoms that make us different (and better, happier, and freer) to 'them'.

I don't agree with that. We fought and won against our earlier foes by embracing and building on those freedoms, declaring that those differences was what was worth fighting for. In the final analysis, it's what we stand for that makes the struggle worthwhile.